Not Heineken Cup 23/24

[Tichtheid]

I don't like size limits either, which ultimately would be prejudice based and unworkable legally.

For clarity, I'm not looking to depower rugby, just to rebalance it away from being as focused on power as it currently is. Increasing the level of fitness required to play the game is one element of that.

The real question is, what do we lose by doing away with tactical subs? I'm not so sure we need to be as wedded to it as we are.


My real bugbear though is the complete and utter shambles that is the ruck. It's ugly, frustrating, unworkable, with about 90% of them being obviously illegal. Also a huge source of dangerous contacts. I know jumping up and down on people's heads wasn't a good look - and I'm not suggesting bringing back that level of proper rucking - but even then I reckon they were not as dangerous as they are now. And they were much more functional. Surely we can go a good distance back towards that type of ruck, just stopping short of actually dancing on people's heads.

We’ll never go back to it, but I can’t honestly recall anyone being deliberately stamped on the head, legs, arms, torso yes, head no. The upshot was that unless you wanted some pain you didn’t kill the ball. As I say we won’t go back to it, I just wanted to point out that “the code” as well as the law prevented heads being a target- you could get a punch in the puss at a maul though.

[Tichtheid]

Oh hang on, now I remember JPR getting stamped on the cheek by an All Black boot, tearing a hole in his face, so yeah it wasn’t impossible for it to happen

[inactionman]

I don't like size limits either, which ultimately would be prejudice based and unworkable legally.

For clarity, I'm not looking to depower rugby, just to rebalance it away from being as focused on power as it currently is. Increasing the level of fitness required to play the game is one element of that.

The real question is, what do we lose by doing away with tactical subs? I'm not so sure we need to be as wedded to it as we are.


My real bugbear though is the complete and utter shambles that is the ruck. It's ugly, frustrating, unworkable, with about 90% of them being obviously illegal. Also a huge source of dangerous contacts. I know jumping up and down on people's heads wasn't a good look - and I'm not suggesting bringing back that level of proper rucking - but even then I reckon they were not as dangerous as they are now. And they were much more functional. Surely we can go a good distance back towards that type of ruck, just stopping short of actually dancing on people's heads.

We’ll never go back to it, but I can’t honestly recall anyone being deliberately stamped on the head, legs, arms, torso yes, head no. The upshot was that unless you wanted some pain you didn’t kill the ball. As I say we won’t go back to it, I just wanted to point out that “the code” as well as the law prevented heads being a target- you could get a punch in the puss at a maul though.

There speaks a man who never played the Met Police.

More seriously, yep,, it tended to be dig in ribs or down back as a hastener to get out of the way.

[inactionman]

Oh hang on, now I remember JPR getting stamped on the cheek by an All Black boot, tearing a hole in his face, so yeah it wasn’t impossible for it to happen

That was exceptional - JPR threatened to never play the All Blacks again as he considered it so far beyond the pale.

(didn't the lunatic play on in that match? 20-odd stitches?)

[Tichtheid]

I don't like size limits either, which ultimately would be prejudice based and unworkable legally.

For clarity, I'm not looking to depower rugby, just to rebalance it away from being as focused on power as it currently is. Increasing the level of fitness required to play the game is one element of that.

The real question is, what do we lose by doing away with tactical subs? I'm not so sure we need to be as wedded to it as we are.


My real bugbear though is the complete and utter shambles that is the ruck. It's ugly, frustrating, unworkable, with about 90% of them being obviously illegal. Also a huge source of dangerous contacts. I know jumping up and down on people's heads wasn't a good look - and I'm not suggesting bringing back that level of proper rucking - but even then I reckon they were not as dangerous as they are now. And they were much more functional. Surely we can go a good distance back towards that type of ruck, just stopping short of actually dancing on people's heads.

We’ll never go back to it, but I can’t honestly recall anyone being deliberately stamped on the head, legs, arms, torso yes, head no. The upshot was that unless you wanted some pain you didn’t kill the ball. As I say we won’t go back to it, I just wanted to point out that “the code” as well as the law prevented heads being a target- you could get a punch in the puss at a maul though.

There speaks a man who never played the Met Police.

More seriously, yep,, it tended to be dig in ribs or down back as a hastener to get out of the way.

I played against Lothian and Borders Police a few times - the dirtiest games I ever played in Scotland (it was mild compared to playing in France)

[PornDog]

I don't like size limits either, which ultimately would be prejudice based and unworkable legally.

For clarity, I'm not looking to depower rugby, just to rebalance it away from being as focused on power as it currently is. Increasing the level of fitness required to play the game is one element of that.

The real question is, what do we lose by doing away with tactical subs? I'm not so sure we need to be as wedded to it as we are.


My real bugbear though is the complete and utter shambles that is the ruck. It's ugly, frustrating, unworkable, with about 90% of them being obviously illegal. Also a huge source of dangerous contacts. I know jumping up and down on people's heads wasn't a good look - and I'm not suggesting bringing back that level of proper rucking - but even then I reckon they were not as dangerous as they are now. And they were much more functional. Surely we can go a good distance back towards that type of ruck, just stopping short of actually dancing on people's heads.

We’ll never go back to it, but I can’t honestly recall anyone being deliberately stamped on the head, legs, arms, torso yes, head no. The upshot was that unless you wanted some pain you didn’t kill the ball. As I say we won’t go back to it, I just wanted to point out that “the code” as well as the law prevented heads being a target- you could get a punch in the puss at a maul though.

We can't keep going the way we are - it must be 90% odd of rucks have players obviously off their feet preventing a contest. It's seriously affecting my enjoyment of the game.

[Tichtheid]

I don't like size limits either, which ultimately would be prejudice based and unworkable legally.

For clarity, I'm not looking to depower rugby, just to rebalance it away from being as focused on power as it currently is. Increasing the level of fitness required to play the game is one element of that.

The real question is, what do we lose by doing away with tactical subs? I'm not so sure we need to be as wedded to it as we are.


My real bugbear though is the complete and utter shambles that is the ruck. It's ugly, frustrating, unworkable, with about 90% of them being obviously illegal. Also a huge source of dangerous contacts. I know jumping up and down on people's heads wasn't a good look - and I'm not suggesting bringing back that level of proper rucking - but even then I reckon they were not as dangerous as they are now. And they were much more functional. Surely we can go a good distance back towards that type of ruck, just stopping short of actually dancing on people's heads.

We’ll never go back to it, but I can’t honestly recall anyone being deliberately stamped on the head, legs, arms, torso yes, head no. The upshot was that unless you wanted some pain you didn’t kill the ball. As I say we won’t go back to it, I just wanted to point out that “the code” as well as the law prevented heads being a target- you could get a punch in the puss at a maul though.

We can't keep going the way we are - it must be 90% odd of rucks have players obviously off their feet preventing a contest. It's seriously affecting my enjoyment of the game.

I hate modern “rucks” too, it just all seems so subjective as to what wins a penalty

[Raggs]

in fairness to him, Uini Atonio has gone from a 30 minutes only sub to a 50 minutes only starter.

Obviously there's a little bit of facetious hyperbole from me, but the point stands - if players have to play a full 80 minutes to international standard then they will be forced to reduce their size to remain competitive.

And Blake, fitter players aren't as easily fatigued! Especially true if they aren't tackling much larger men that only play a portion of the match.

He played 60 minutes against South Africa in a world cup quarter final. I'm willing to bet I can find games that he's played for his club where he's stayed on even longer.

People seem to be under the impression that the giants will suddenly drop 30kg. It's not going to happen, they don't need to. Skelton is enormous, and regularly played 80 minutes.

Well then there should be no issue with them playing 80 minutes every week then, should there?

You're hardly showing me up by saying Atonio has occasionally played 60 minutes either. I'd be very surprised as well if Skelton did "regularly" play the full 80 as well. I'm sure it has happened - Furlong and Porter have done so (or pretty damn close to it) for us numerous times, though usually because there are questions over our backups than by choice.

And you're guilty of as much hyperbole as I am with your drop 30kgs remark. Of course that's not going to happen. They are certainly not mutually exclusive, but there is an inverse relationship between fitness and power - rebalancing that is a net good for rugby.

For what's it's worth, I like the idea of limiting subs to 4 changes, with a max of 2 being for tactical reasons.

60 minutes in one of the most intense games in the rugby calendar. His bread and butter games in the T14 are not going to be the same intensity.

A quick skim says Atonio has only played 80 twice in 6 seasons. Rarely plays past 60.

Sure, but as pointed out above, bread and butter will be T14.

The number of players exposed to this idea of having no subs, is far greater than just internationals. Add to that, if even the real physical freaks that are also carrying a ton of spare weight, can manage 60+ and 80 minutes at still an extremely high level, then zero subs is going to have feck all difference on the vast majority of players out there. Is it Skelton and Antonio causing most these injury issues?

[Biffer]

He played 60 minutes against South Africa in a world cup quarter final. I'm willing to bet I can find games that he's played for his club where he's stayed on even longer.

People seem to be under the impression that the giants will suddenly drop 30kg. It's not going to happen, they don't need to. Skelton is enormous, and regularly played 80 minutes.

Well then there should be no issue with them playing 80 minutes every week then, should there?

You're hardly showing me up by saying Atonio has occasionally played 60 minutes either. I'd be very surprised as well if Skelton did "regularly" play the full 80 as well. I'm sure it has happened - Furlong and Porter have done so (or pretty damn close to it) for us numerous times, though usually because there are questions over our backups than by choice.

And you're guilty of as much hyperbole as I am with your drop 30kgs remark. Of course that's not going to happen. They are certainly not mutually exclusive, but there is an inverse relationship between fitness and power - rebalancing that is a net good for rugby.

For what's it's worth, I like the idea of limiting subs to 4 changes, with a max of 2 being for tactical reasons.

60 minutes in one of the most intense games in the rugby calendar. His bread and butter games in the T14 are not going to be the same intensity.

A quick skim says Atonio has only played 80 twice in 6 seasons. Rarely plays past 60.

Sure, but as pointed out above, bread and butter will be T14.

The number of players exposed to this idea of having no subs, is far greater than just internationals. Add to that, if even the real physical freaks that are also carrying a ton of spare weight, can manage 60+ and 80 minutes at still an extremely high level, then zero subs is going to have feck all difference on the vast majority of players out there. Is it Skelton and Antonio causing most these injury issues?

That includes T14

[Raggs]

Well then there should be no issue with them playing 80 minutes every week then, should there?

You're hardly showing me up by saying Atonio has occasionally played 60 minutes either. I'd be very surprised as well if Skelton did "regularly" play the full 80 as well. I'm sure it has happened - Furlong and Porter have done so (or pretty damn close to it) for us numerous times, though usually because there are questions over our backups than by choice.

And you're guilty of as much hyperbole as I am with your drop 30kgs remark. Of course that's not going to happen. They are certainly not mutually exclusive, but there is an inverse relationship between fitness and power - rebalancing that is a net good for rugby.

For what's it's worth, I like the idea of limiting subs to 4 changes, with a max of 2 being for tactical reasons.

60 minutes in one of the most intense games in the rugby calendar. His bread and butter games in the T14 are not going to be the same intensity.

A quick skim says Atonio has only played 80 twice in 6 seasons. Rarely plays past 60.

Sure, but as pointed out above, bread and butter will be T14.

The number of players exposed to this idea of having no subs, is far greater than just internationals. Add to that, if even the real physical freaks that are also carrying a ton of spare weight, can manage 60+ and 80 minutes at still an extremely high level, then zero subs is going to have feck all difference on the vast majority of players out there. Is it Skelton and Antonio causing most these injury issues?

That includes T14

Even so, if he can go 80 in the 6N, he can do it and will be picked to do it in the T14. Even if he has to lose 10kg just to help along, it'll make no significant difference to his enormous size, and the vast majority of players won't need to change size at all.

Research shows that fatigued vs fatigued causes more injuries that fresh vs fatigued. Forcing there to be more fatigued players on the pitch will increase injury. The whole point of rugby is to try hard and get tired. If you get fitter, you try harder, you don't just keep going and feel fresh as a daisy by the end of the 80.

[Biffer]

60 minutes in one of the most intense games in the rugby calendar. His bread and butter games in the T14 are not going to be the same intensity.



Sure, but as pointed out above, bread and butter will be T14.

The number of players exposed to this idea of having no subs, is far greater than just internationals. Add to that, if even the real physical freaks that are also carrying a ton of spare weight, can manage 60+ and 80 minutes at still an extremely high level, then zero subs is going to have feck all difference on the vast majority of players out there. Is it Skelton and Antonio causing most these injury issues?

That includes T14

Even so, if he can go 80 in the 6N, he can do it and will be picked to do it in the T14. Even if he has to lose 10kg just to help along, it'll make no significant difference to his enormous size, and the vast majority of players won't need to change size at all.

Research shows that fatigued vs fatigued causes more injuries that fresh vs fatigued. Forcing there to be more fatigued players on the pitch will increase injury. The whole point of rugby is to try hard and get tired. If you get fitter, you try harder, you don't just keep going and feel fresh as a daisy by the end of the 80.

He hasn't done 80 in the 6Ns. He's done it twice in the T14. He's never played past 60 for France, rarely goes much past 50.

[PornDog]

Research shows that fatigued vs fatigued causes more injuries that fresh vs fatigued. Forcing there to be more fatigued players on the pitch will increase injury. The whole point of rugby is to try hard and get tired. If you get fitter, you try harder, you don't just keep going and feel fresh as a daisy by the end of the 80.

I'm sorry but I have to call complete bollox to this. I don't know if its an issue with the research or an issue with how the research is being interpreted, but I would seriously question the conclusions regarding tactical substitutions in rugby you seem to be drawing from it.

First of all fitter players suffer less fatigue.

Secondly, go and take a look at the injury rate of players before tactical substitutions were brought into the game versus injury rates after they were brought in - then you can explain to me why that real world data isn't compatible with the conclusions you are presenting from this research.


For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying substitutions are the reason players are getting injured and without them all will be rosy again. I am saying it is one single factor that is contributing to the increase in power of players, which is itself one of the factors in the game becoming more dangerous. The notion that removing substitutions somehow presents an increased danger to players is complete and utter nonsense!

Again though, how would removing, or restricting substitutes negatively affect the game? Why is the suggestion so bad? I see the ticks in the pro column, but I'm not too clear on what the ticks in the con column are!

[Biffer]

Research shows that fatigued vs fatigued causes more injuries that fresh vs fatigued. Forcing there to be more fatigued players on the pitch will increase injury. The whole point of rugby is to try hard and get tired. If you get fitter, you try harder, you don't just keep going and feel fresh as a daisy by the end of the 80.

I'm sorry but I have to call complete bollox to this. I don't know if its an issue with the research or an issue with how the research is being interpreted, but I would seriously question the conclusions regarding tactical substitutions in rugby you seem to be drawing from it.

First of all fitter players suffer less fatigue.

Secondly, go and take a look at the injury rate of players before tactical substitutions were brought into the game versus injury rates after they were brought in - then you can explain to me why that real world data isn't compatible with the conclusions you are presenting from this research.


For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying substitutions are the reason players are getting injured and without them all will be rosy again. I am saying it is one single factor that is contributing to the increase in power of players, which is itself one of the factors in the game becoming more dangerous. The notion that removing substitutions somehow presents an increased danger to players is complete and utter nonsense!

Again though, how would removing, or restricting substitutes negatively affect the game? Why is the suggestion so bad? I see the ticks in the pro column, but I'm not too clear on what the ticks in the con column are!

I think the problem with that research is that they're comparing like with like - i.e. the same players when they're fresh and when they're tired. The point here is that the comparison would not be like for like as their conditioning would be different

[PornDog]

Research shows that fatigued vs fatigued causes more injuries that fresh vs fatigued. Forcing there to be more fatigued players on the pitch will increase injury. The whole point of rugby is to try hard and get tired. If you get fitter, you try harder, you don't just keep going and feel fresh as a daisy by the end of the 80.

I'm sorry but I have to call complete bollox to this. I don't know if its an issue with the research or an issue with how the research is being interpreted, but I would seriously question the conclusions regarding tactical substitutions in rugby you seem to be drawing from it.

First of all fitter players suffer less fatigue.

Secondly, go and take a look at the injury rate of players before tactical substitutions were brought into the game versus injury rates after they were brought in - then you can explain to me why that real world data isn't compatible with the conclusions you are presenting from this research.


For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying substitutions are the reason players are getting injured and without them all will be rosy again. I am saying it is one single factor that is contributing to the increase in power of players, which is itself one of the factors in the game becoming more dangerous. The notion that removing substitutions somehow presents an increased danger to players is complete and utter nonsense!

Again though, how would removing, or restricting substitutes negatively affect the game? Why is the suggestion so bad? I see the ticks in the pro column, but I'm not too clear on what the ticks in the con column are!

I think the problem with that research is that they're comparing like with like - i.e. the same players when they're fresh and when they're tired. The point here is that the comparison would not be like for like as their conditioning would be different

Well as I said above, fatigue resulting in more mistakes is an issue common across all of human activity. To narrow that fact down to a specific interpretation in specific circumstances, without considering all of the other contributing factors is fucking boneheaded!

[Raggs]

Research shows that fatigued vs fatigued causes more injuries that fresh vs fatigued. Forcing there to be more fatigued players on the pitch will increase injury. The whole point of rugby is to try hard and get tired. If you get fitter, you try harder, you don't just keep going and feel fresh as a daisy by the end of the 80.

I'm sorry but I have to call complete bollox to this. I don't know if its an issue with the research or an issue with how the research is being interpreted, but I would seriously question the conclusions regarding tactical substitutions in rugby you seem to be drawing from it.

First of all fitter players suffer less fatigue.

Secondly, go and take a look at the injury rate of players before tactical substitutions were brought into the game versus injury rates after they were brought in - then you can explain to me why that real world data isn't compatible with the conclusions you are presenting from this research.


For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying substitutions are the reason players are getting injured and without them all will be rosy again. I am saying it is one single factor that is contributing to the increase in power of players, which is itself one of the factors in the game becoming more dangerous. The notion that removing substitutions somehow presents an increased danger to players is complete and utter nonsense!

Again though, how would removing, or restricting substitutes negatively affect the game? Why is the suggestion so bad? I see the ticks in the pro column, but I'm not too clear on what the ticks in the con column are!

I think the problem with that research is that they're comparing like with like - i.e. the same players when they're fresh and when they're tired. The point here is that the comparison would not be like for like as their conditioning would be different

How would most players conditioning be different? Most players can easily go the full 80. Feel free to ignore that question by the way. I'm out of the conversation now. The moment people choose to ignore the scientific research done on rugby, based on fatigue and injury rates, because it doesn't fit their pre-conceived notions, is the point where there's nothing more to discuss.

[PornDog]

Raggs - that players who are fatigued are more likely to be injured is a self evident fact.

That removing substitutions will therefore result in more injuries is not a conclusion that you can draw from that fact!

[petej]

Essentially, what are we trying to achieve by removing subs? Are we are trying to drop the weight and power of rugby players by making it less advantageous to be a big physical freak and more power than endurance athlete.

Might be better achieved with bigger pitches and crack downs on resting between plays (south Africa were very very good at clock/referee management to rest between plays/downs at the world cup). Etzebeth goes down incredibly frequently but makes astonishingly rapid recoveries.

[LoveOfTheGame]

Essentially, what are we trying to achieve by removing subs? Are we are trying to drop the weight and power of rugby players by making it less advantageous to be a big physical freak and more power than endurance athlete.

Might be better achieved with bigger pitches and crack downs on resting between plays (south Africa were very very good at clock/referee management to rest between plays/downs at the world cup). Etzebeth goes down incredibly frequently but makes astonishingly rapid recoveries.

Piss right off.

[Raggs]

Raggs - that players who are fatigued are more likely to be injured is a self evident fact.

That removing substitutions will therefore result in more injuries is not a conclusion that you can draw from that fact!

I never tried. As I stated, fatigued vs fatigued leads to more injuries than fatigued vs fresh. That's what the research shows. And furthermore, unsurprisingly, 2 replacements in a tackle situation, are even less likely to end up with injury than one fatigued and one fresh.

Most players can already play the full 80.

Removing subs = more fatigued players on the pitch. Fatigued players are more likely to get injured. It's not going to magically mean that those players, who are already capable of playing 80 minutes, are suddenly going to not get fatigued by the end of the game.

[PornDog]

Essentially, what are we trying to achieve by removing subs? Are we are trying to drop the weight and power of rugby players by making it less advantageous to be a big physical freak and more power than endurance athlete.

Might be better achieved with bigger pitches and crack downs on resting between plays (south Africa were very very good at clock/referee management to rest between plays/downs at the world cup). Etzebeth goes down incredibly frequently but makes astonishingly rapid recoveries.

It's more of a rebalancing, reversing the recent trend towards power, back more towards athleticism.

Changing pitch size isn't on the cards unless you've Jeff Bezos money hanging down the back of your couch. I'm definitely down for reducing the amount of stoppages though. Delaying a restart because some cunt needs a magic sponge should be done away with whenever possible.

Raggs - Most players do play 80. However most of the truly huge players, those that are more often responsible for the biggest collisions, rarely do. That's what I'd like to change.

Plus, just on general principle, the sight of two brand new front rows coming on after 55 minutes just pisses me off!

[OomStruisbaai]

Champions Cup round of 16 fixtures:
Friday, 5 April
9pm: Harlequins v Glasgow Warriors, Twickenham Stoop, London
Saturday, 6 April
1:30pm: Bulls v Lyon, Loftus Versfeld, Pretoria
4pm: Exeter Chiefs v Bath, Sandy Park, Exeter
4pm: Stormers v La Rochelle, Cape Town Stadium, Cape Town
6:30pm: Bordeaux-Begles v Saracens, Stade Chaban-Delmas, Bordeaux
9pm: Leinster v Leicester Tigers, Aviva Stadium, Dublin
Sunday, 7 April
1:30pm: Northampton v Munster, Cinch Stadium at Franklin’s Gardens, Northampton
4pm: Toulouse v Racing 92, Le Stadium, Toulouse

Challenge Cup round of 16 fixtures:
Friday, 5 April
9pm: Gloucester v Castres, Kingsholm, Gloucester
Saturday, 6 April
1:30pm: Clermont v Cheetahs, Stade Marcel-Michelin, Clermont-Ferrand
6:30pm: Benetton v Lions, Stadio Comunale di Monigo, Treviso
9pm: Ospreys v Sale Sharks, Brewery Field, Bridgend
9pm: Edinburgh Rugby v Bayonnais, Hive Stadium, Edinburgh
Sunday, 7 April
1:30pm: Montpellier v Ulster, GGL Stadium, Montpellier
4pm: Sharks v Zebre, Kings Park, Durban
6:30pm: Pau v Connacht, Stade du Hameau, Pau

[LoveOfTheGame]

Essentially, what are we trying to achieve by removing subs? Are we are trying to drop the weight and power of rugby players by making it less advantageous to be a big physical freak and more power than endurance athlete.

Might be better achieved with bigger pitches and crack downs on resting between plays (south Africa were very very good at clock/referee management to rest between plays/downs at the world cup). Etzebeth goes down incredibly frequently but makes astonishingly rapid recoveries.

It's more of a rebalancing, reversing the recent trend towards power, back more towards athleticism.

Changing pitch size isn't on the cards unless you've Jeff Bezos money hanging down the back of your couch. I'm definitely down for reducing the amount of stoppages though. Delaying a restart because some cunt needs a magic sponge should be done away with whenever possible.

Raggs - Most players do play 80. However most of the truly huge players, those that are more often responsible for the biggest collisions, rarely do. That's what I'd like to change.

Plus, just on general principle, the sight of two brand new front rows coming on after 55 minutes just pisses me off!

So I take it the Springboks are not your second favourite team then?

[Lobby]

Oh hang on, now I remember JPR getting stamped on the cheek by an All Black boot, tearing a hole in his face, so yeah it wasn’t impossible for it to happen

You obviously never saw Peter Clohessy play



There was also the time Jon Callard had to have 25 stitches in his face after the South African flanker Elandre van den Berg stamped (twice if I recall) on his head in a match between England and Eastern Province in 1994.

[Slick]

Essentially, what are we trying to achieve by removing subs? Are we are trying to drop the weight and power of rugby players by making it less advantageous to be a big physical freak and more power than endurance athlete.

Might be better achieved with bigger pitches and crack downs on resting between plays (south Africa were very very good at clock/referee management to rest between plays/downs at the world cup). Etzebeth goes down incredibly frequently but makes astonishingly rapid recoveries.

Piss right off.

Are you genuinely saying that this wasn't happening?

[Biffer]

Essentially, what are we trying to achieve by removing subs? Are we are trying to drop the weight and power of rugby players by making it less advantageous to be a big physical freak and more power than endurance athlete.

Might be better achieved with bigger pitches and crack downs on resting between plays (south Africa were very very good at clock/referee management to rest between plays/downs at the world cup). Etzebeth goes down incredibly frequently but makes astonishingly rapid recoveries.

Piss right off.

Are you genuinely saying that this wasn't happening?

Of course he is. The Saffers are the most innocent and pure rugby nation in the world, you must have realised that by now.

[PornDog]

Essentially, what are we trying to achieve by removing subs? Are we are trying to drop the weight and power of rugby players by making it less advantageous to be a big physical freak and more power than endurance athlete.

Might be better achieved with bigger pitches and crack downs on resting between plays (south Africa were very very good at clock/referee management to rest between plays/downs at the world cup). Etzebeth goes down incredibly frequently but makes astonishingly rapid recoveries.

It's more of a rebalancing, reversing the recent trend towards power, back more towards athleticism.

Changing pitch size isn't on the cards unless you've Jeff Bezos money hanging down the back of your couch. I'm definitely down for reducing the amount of stoppages though. Delaying a restart because some cunt needs a magic sponge should be done away with whenever possible.

Raggs - Most players do play 80. However most of the truly huge players, those that are more often responsible for the biggest collisions, rarely do. That's what I'd like to change.

Plus, just on general principle, the sight of two brand new front rows coming on after 55 minutes just pisses me off!

So I take it the Springboks are not your second favourite team then?

?

Not to go all AC here or anything, but please don't quote me with your inane drivel! Thanks.

[petej]

Essentially, what are we trying to achieve by removing subs? Are we are trying to drop the weight and power of rugby players by making it less advantageous to be a big physical freak and more power than endurance athlete.

Might be better achieved with bigger pitches and crack downs on resting between plays (south Africa were very very good at clock/referee management to rest between plays/downs at the world cup). Etzebeth goes down incredibly frequently but makes astonishingly rapid recoveries.

Piss right off.

It is for this reason in football why "injured" players started to have to go off the pitch. It is good game/clock management (and this sort of thing is standard in pro sports). I would be surprised if Etsebeth hadn't been instructed by the coach to do it. There are counters to it arrive early at set pieces to make it obvious that a team is constantly delaying. In pre-match press conferences bring it up as time wasting and faking injury which is less shitty than some of the comments towards refs from coaches but same marginal gains type gamesmanship. Considering the margins in some of the world cup games these marginal gains can be very important.

South Africa are very obviously a team at the world cup conditioned for power over stamina. The reverse is the England 2015 team where the conditioning was towards stamina and successfully managed to depower the forwards and never played in a way which favoured the conditioning and a comedy group stage exit was achieved. At least the style and tactics were aligned with the conditioning for SA.

Edit: the data and analytics publicly available for rugby is no where near that available for football.

[Tichtheid]

Oh hang on, now I remember JPR getting stamped on the cheek by an All Black boot, tearing a hole in his face, so yeah it wasn’t impossible for it to happen

You obviously never saw Peter Clohessy play



There was also the time Jon Callard had to have 25 stitches in his face after the South African flanker Elandre van den Berg stamped (twice if I recall) on his head in a match between England and Eastern Province in 1994.

I had forgotten that one - that's fucking terrible. Clohessy had a reputation for dirty play.

Wiki tells me he got a 26 week ban for that, I'd have given him more.

[PornDog]

Oh hang on, now I remember JPR getting stamped on the cheek by an All Black boot, tearing a hole in his face, so yeah it wasn’t impossible for it to happen

You obviously never saw Peter Clohessy play



There was also the time Jon Callard had to have 25 stitches in his face after the South African flanker Elandre van den Berg stamped (twice if I recall) on his head in a match between England and Eastern Province in 1994.

I had forgotten that one - that's fucking terrible. Clohessy had a reputation for dirty play.

Wiki tells me he got a 26 week ban for that, I'd have given him more.

It wasn't a global ban either - he just fucked off down to Queensland and played for the Reds for 6 months.

[Ovals]

Here's a crazy idea. Give team that hasn't changed their front row, the option to go to uncontested scrums when the other side replaces any of their front row.

[Sandstorm]

Oh hang on, now I remember JPR getting stamped on the cheek by an All Black boot, tearing a hole in his face, so yeah it wasn’t impossible for it to happen

You obviously never saw Peter Clohessy play



There was also the time Jon Callard had to have 25 stitches in his face after the South African flanker Elandre van den Berg stamped (twice if I recall) on his head in a match between England and Eastern Province in 1994.

Meh, stitches heal. Scars are cool.

Brain damage from stupid ruck laws today are the real issue and no-one seems to have a way to fix this.

[Lobby]

Oh hang on, now I remember JPR getting stamped on the cheek by an All Black boot, tearing a hole in his face, so yeah it wasn’t impossible for it to happen

You obviously never saw Peter Clohessy play



There was also the time Jon Callard had to have 25 stitches in his face after the South African flanker Elandre van den Berg stamped (twice if I recall) on his head in a match between England and Eastern Province in 1994.

Meh, stitches heal. Scars are cool.

Brain damage from stupid ruck laws today are the real issue and no-one seems to have a way to fix this.

Van den Berg was a rank amateur compared to Gary Pagel. After he'd finished dancing on French Captain Jean-Francois Tordo's head, he had to have 50 stitches and a 2 hour operation to rebuild his face.

[Camroc2]

Oh hang on, now I remember JPR getting stamped on the cheek by an All Black boot, tearing a hole in his face, so yeah it wasn’t impossible for it to happen

You obviously never saw Peter Clohessy play



There was also the time Jon Callard had to have 25 stitches in his face after the South African flanker Elandre van den Berg stamped (twice if I recall) on his head in a match between England and Eastern Province in 1994.

Clohessy got a 26 week ban for that, oh that modern disciplinary committees followed the precedent.

[ASMO]

Here's a crazy idea. Give team that hasn't changed their front row, the option to go to uncontested scrums when the other side replaces any of their front row.

Leaves it wide open to abuse, team getting monstered in the scrum replaces a front rower.....

[Tichtheid]

Oh hang on, now I remember JPR getting stamped on the cheek by an All Black boot, tearing a hole in his face, so yeah it wasn’t impossible for it to happen

You obviously never saw Peter Clohessy play



There was also the time Jon Callard had to have 25 stitches in his face after the South African flanker Elandre van den Berg stamped (twice if I recall) on his head in a match between England and Eastern Province in 1994.

Clohessy got a 26 week ban for that, oh that modern disciplinary committees followed the precedent.

See PornDog's post on the subject - he kept playing

[Ovals]

Here's a crazy idea. Give team that hasn't changed their front row, the option to go to uncontested scrums when the other side replaces any of their front row.

Leaves it wide open to abuse, team getting monstered in the scrum replaces a front rower.....

No - they can't. Only the opposing team get to call it, if they wish to, when the other side change a front rower.

[Raggs]

Here's a crazy idea. Give team that hasn't changed their front row, the option to go to uncontested scrums when the other side replaces any of their front row.

Leaves it wide open to abuse, team getting monstered in the scrum replaces a front rower.....

No - they can't. Only the opposing team get to call it, if they wish to, when the other side change a front rower.

And what problem does it solve?

[Ovals]

Leaves it wide open to abuse, team getting monstered in the scrum replaces a front rower.....

No - they can't. Only the opposing team get to call it, if they wish to, when the other side change a front rower.

And what problem does it solve?

Maybe encourages teams to keep their front rows on for longer.

[Raggs]

No - they can't. Only the opposing team get to call it, if they wish to, when the other side change a front rower.

And what problem does it solve?

Maybe encourages teams to keep their front rows on for longer.

And what problem does that solve?

Ignoring the fact that a fresh prop is still going to be more useful around the field than a fatigued one whether scrums are uncontested or not.

[Blake]

Essentially, what are we trying to achieve by removing subs? Are we are trying to drop the weight and power of rugby players by making it less advantageous to be a big physical freak and more power than endurance athlete.

Might be better achieved with bigger pitches and crack downs on resting between plays (south Africa were very very good at clock/referee management to rest between plays/downs at the world cup). Etzebeth goes down incredibly frequently but makes astonishingly rapid recoveries.

Piss right off.

Are you genuinely saying that this wasn't happening?

Against the B&I Lions it was most definitely happening. It was a tactic that had to be used at the time to compensate for the Springboks' poor conditioning leading into that tournament...and also because half of the test side had recoevred from Covid 2 weeks before the first test!

Since then this notion that the Boks are "slowing the game down" is a very persistent myth. They are quite often pushing the pace as there is little advantage in slowing things down and allowing the opposition forwards to recover, when we have a fresh bench to bring on! How does that even make sense logically?

A stat that somehow proves how the Boks are slowing things down is how long a half of rugby takes and a good example being the match vs the All Blacks at Twickenham which took about an hour. But when you look closely it wasn't the Boks slowing that game down. The stoppages were due to an All Black injuries (around 10 minutes) and repeated penalties (leading to a yellow card) in the first 20 minutes. The stats show that teams concede more penalties against the Boks than against any other opposition. Teams tend to infringe a lot when when the Boks try to up the tempo.

But like some of the other myths surrounding Bok rugby these things persist, regardless of the evidence to the contrary, and that's fine. It's actually to our advantage if the opposition believes it. But then again I'm sure the other coaches are smarter than the fans and know that it's all BS.